Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...

Dee D. Flint wrote:


You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you

are

putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme??

I'm not so sure he is, Dee. I see a person that disagrees with some of
what the ARRL is doing, yet still supports the basic objective. I mean
if he's been a member since 86, that counts for something.

Kind of like how I am with politics. The Dems are in shambles, and the
Repubs are waaaaaayyyyy too liberal any more with their way out of line
deficit spending.

But I still vote, and try to pick the least awful candidate.



Which is fine. But if you want something better than what the least awful
candidate will provide, what do you do? If the majority of your party
disagrees with you on some points, what do you do? Do you expect them to
change just because you want them to or because you have been a member for
nearly 20 years? It isn't going to happen. If you want change, then you
roll up your sleeves and go to work on it; not sit and complain, not "take
your marbles and go home." The latter two approaches never work.

I vote! That's really about all I can do. And when enough people
believe what I do, then things may change.

Lets say I think that the deficit is too high. Who do I vote for? Who
speaks for me? Right now, I don't think anyone does, but I'll vote for
anyone who will.

But you seem to be saying that in order to have an opinion and express
it, I have to run for office. I wonder what office is high enough to
have an opinion? local tax collector or commisioner? Maybe they would be
allowed to have an opinion and express it on local issues. In order to
have an opinion and express it, I would have to be a Senator or a member
of the House. I suppose that the State versions of thes would have their
opinions dissappear when an issue goes to the Federal level.

Seriously your approach sounds like: "Don't you worry your little head
about anything, we have everything taken care of thankyouverymuch. And
when we want your opinion, we'll tell you what it is.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Mike Coslo wrote in message

...

Brian wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote


I think this is one of those cases where some people think that their
membership is a subscription to QST. Its a lot more than that. ARRL

does

a lot for Amateurs, even those who hate the organization.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Fair enough.

I dislike some of the policies that the ARRL has promoted in the past,
and felt as if the ARRL did not represent me even though I have been a
member since 1986.

Well, there you go! As a member, I'll pay a lot more attnetion to what
you have to say.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, don't let Dee hear you say that. ;^)

I must hold an official ARRL elected office to have any influence.



Not necessarily. You merely need to convince the majority that your view is
correct so that people who have the same agenda as you will be elected.

Good heavens. I appreciate that you believe that people should work for
what they believe in. But I can paraphrase what you are saying is that
if a person isn't willing to get heavily involved, then they are welcome
to shut up.

That isn't democracy, representative or otherwise, it's a virtual
dictatorship.

In my club, I listen to everyone. You would just listen to the other
board members.

I can imagine the response when someone wants to know where the money is
gone, and has some ideas on how it should be spent. I guess you would
tell them it isn't any of their business since they don't care to be a
member of the board?


I wonder what elected office she holds in an effort to stem the tide of

change?

I choose to vote for officials who have the goals that I believe in. While
I disagree with the probable changes that are coming, they are not so
heinous that I see a need to rearrange my priorities to personally fight
them. They are changes I can live with should they come to pass.

Sure. And that's fine. But you seem to be telling Brian that he can't
have his opinion. It may be stronger than your's but that's how some
people are.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:

snippage


Yeah the average Joe would then know what he is really paying through all
the hidden taxes and boy would he scream then.

Yup!

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Mike Coslo wrote in message

...

Brian wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote


I think this is one of those cases where some people think that their
membership is a subscription to QST. Its a lot more than that. ARRL

does

a lot for Amateurs, even those who hate the organization.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Fair enough.

I dislike some of the policies that the ARRL has promoted in the past,
and felt as if the ARRL did not represent me even though I have been a
member since 1986.

Well, there you go! As a member, I'll pay a lot more attnetion to what
you have to say.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, don't let Dee hear you say that. ;^)

I must hold an official ARRL elected office to have any influence.



Not necessarily. You merely need to convince the majority that your
view is
correct so that people who have the same agenda as you will be elected.

Good heavens. I appreciate that you believe that people should work for
what they believe in. But I can paraphrase what you are saying is that
if a person isn't willing to get heavily involved, then they are welcome
to shut up.

That isn't democracy, representative or otherwise, it's a virtual
dictatorship.

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying change doesn't happen without
work. Since Brian chooses only to complain and not dig in and do the work,
then he can't expect change. Brian's approach of changing because Brian
wants the change is the dictatorial approach.


In my club, I listen to everyone. You would just listen to the other
board members.


No, any dues paying member has a right to be heard. They just can't expect
change unless they do more. At the very least they need to convince other
club members and then bring it to a vote of the general membership. But
again this requires WORK.

I can imagine the response when someone wants to know where the money is
gone, and has some ideas on how it should be spent. I guess you would
tell them it isn't any of their business since they don't care to be a
member of the board?



All who pay dues have a right to examine the books. All who do not agree
with where the money is going have a right to bring it up in a general club
meeting and ask for a vote. But guess what. The latter two activities once
again require WORK.

I wonder what elected office she holds in an effort to stem the tide of

change?

I choose to vote for officials who have the goals that I believe in.
While
I disagree with the probable changes that are coming, they are not so
heinous that I see a need to rearrange my priorities to personally fight
them. They are changes I can live with should they come to pass.

Sure. And that's fine. But you seem to be telling Brian that he can't
have his opinion. It may be stronger than your's but that's how some
people are.

- Mike KB3EIA -


No Brian is welcome to his opinion. But if he isn't willing to do the work
to effect a change then he is being unrealistic in expecting that change to
come to pass. That is all. He wants things to change just by saying he
wants them to change. I am challenging that self-centered, simplistic, and
unrealistic expectation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or
comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother
you
that much if those comments agreed more with your own views.

I'll take that bet. I happen to agree 100% with LHA that Morse testing is
no longer necessary in the amateur radio service. Even so, I still think he
is an over-pompous posturing twit who could benefit from wider bonding
straps attached to several additional grounding rods.

With all kind wishes for a joyous holiday season,

de Hans, K0HB

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil


Quit trying to sound like a Ba'athist amateur, Klunk.

There certainly weren't many of them, kindly old gent. Still, YI1BGD
contacts weren't that hard to come by. Rarer still would be a QSL
confirming a contact with you on the ham bands.

Rarer still would be the Great Amateur Heil getting above 70 cm.

How would you know?

So, your only "interest" in radio is contacting "rare ones?"

Excuse me? Where did you see that statement from me?

Home Depot and Lowes have fine selections of tasteful wallpaper
if you need some.

....and Toy 'R' Us carries "Clue". Maybe someone will get you a "Clue"
for Christmas!

Better than QSL cards for the esthetic senses
of non-radio guests. [you DO have guests, don't you? or are all
your social contacts of the ham variety?]

Whaddya writing a book? If so, leave out the chapter on my socializing
and make it a mystery.

The League (of Notions) MAKES MONEY on the publication side
of their conglomerate of control.

Ads in QST pay for everything in the QST staff and the cost of job
printing and fulfillment (publication talk for mailing/distributing).

The "non-profit" stuff and nonsense is for lowering their taxes.

No kidding? Thanks for clearing this up for those of us who've only
been members for three or four decades, Len. You're pretty up to date
for a non-member, non-radio amateur.

SOMEONE had to clue you in, ignorant one.

Why not regale us with another account of ARRL dishonesty, Foghorn?

You've been so busy worshipping at the Church of St. Hiram you
never knew about the BUSINESS side of the League?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I'm sure that you're as much an expert on the inner workings of the ARRL
as you are on amateur radio.

You need copies of their IRS forms from 2002 and previous years?
Those are on the Internet.

I interviewed for a League position years back. The
salary offered wasn't enough to cover a move and life in the greater
Hartford area.

Translation: You were rejected. (boo hoo for you)

You've mistranslated. What part of "the salary offered" wasn't clear to
you? Are you playing loose with the facts again?

What was the AMOUNT of the salary offering? You never gave any
"facts," only some CLAIM that "you interviewed."

I have to ask, Len. What business would that be of yours?

YOUR facts are simply salesmanship doubletalk on "facts." You've
not given any supportable facts. None.

What part of "salary offered" wasn't clear to you? What is the point of
your attempting make an issue of the matter.

While I'm sure that salaries are now better, I don't
think any League staffers are putting up gold-plated Rohn tower and 80m
yagis at their palatial estates.

Rohn filed for bankruptcy on account of that?

No, I think they waited for decades for your business and it dawned on
someone at the plant that it just wasn't going to come about.

I've never gone to Rohn for any towers are antennas. Three other
commercial firms, Andrew being the oldest (and still solvent).

Why the sudden misdirection into FALSE CLAIMS about some
company "waiting for my business?"

Sudden misdirection? What was your comment about Rohn's bankruptcy?

You can see the top five staffers' salaries given on their 2002 IRS
forms.

And?

It would give you a baseline for MORE creative lying in here about
"interviewing with the ARRL." :-)

What on earth are you babbling about?


If you are foolish enough to believe that W1AW's station, the
"museum" and all the other paraphenalia came out of dues, you've
got a database gap large enough to sail the USS Enterprise through.

I've made no such statement. I know how a non-profit organization
operates. I know how the ARRL operates. Sadly, I know how you operate.

I'm not a licensed MD. :-)

....and you're not a license radio amateur either :-) :-)

With all the dissatisfaction you've expressed, why not start your own
organization for like-minded hams? I'm sure you'd amass a following in
no time.

Three-fourths of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs are NOT members.

One fourth, a sizeable number, ARE members.

That's still a *MINORITY*.

It is 25% of all radio amateurs in the U.S. It beats your one of a
kind.

Hello? Are you rational yet?

There are also Associate
Members who are not licensees.

NON-VOTING. They can't "decide" a damn thing in League things.

Why would they expect to?

You aren't a Full Member nor are you an Associate Member.

So, everyone is not allowed to comment on anything if they
are not a "member?"

Comment all you like. You have no say in ARRL matters.

The League is a POLITICAL ENTITY. They lobby.

That is certainly a part of what the ARRL does, and it does it very,
very well.

The League is OPEN FOR COMMENTARY BY EVERYONE,
senior.

You can stand outside and comment your buns off. They don't amount to a
hill of beans. Non-members have no vote.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution allows
EVERY CITIZEN to comment.

....not from inside an organization it doesn't. The ARRL isn't required
to listen to or act on your comments.

Except in your amateur universe...

That should be evidenciary. To all but the minority who are members.

So, to see if we have your latest yarn straight, ARRL members aren't
aware that there are others who are not members?

Bad attempt at editing and word cut-and-pasting, senior.

TAKE THINGS IN CONTEXT.

I took them in context. Go back and read your own words. Don't forget
to look at the those you snipped. You'll need them for clarity.

Members "KNOW what is good for all the others" and therefore they
are the elite.

Other than you, who issues such statements? What is any of this to you
as an outsider to amateur radio and the ARRL?

Does such statements upset you?

Who has issued such statements? What is any of this to you?

See a real MD...or psychiatric specialist.

You need one.

Oh, are you an expert on medicine as well as amateur radio?

The League (of Notions) still holds on vainly to the idea that morse
code is still the ultimate of amateur skills...long after the rest of the
radio world has given it up, discarded it for communications.

Maybe you can point us to some place on the ARRL web site where such a
statement is made.

Maybe you can go to another Scientology office and get "clear" so
that you can see years and years and years of propagandizing of
and for morsemanship.

So you can't provide us with anything to back your latest wild claim.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

If you've been paying attention, I was offered a job with the ARRL. I
turned it down. Are you playing loose with facts again?

What "facts" Ripley? You made a CLAIM. An UNSUPPORTED
CLAIM.

Get someone to vouch for your "job interview," someone in the
League who was there at the time.

Do your own leg work, Windy. If it bothers you, why not contact Dave
Sumner and confirm it with him. The year was 1975.

I'll be generous and accept State Department notification (if on
official letterhead stationery). :-)

Or, knowing State, on their official stationary...

Remember the N2EY profile of your likely actions? I think it is about
time we dust it off.

No wonder you are so bitter.

I think you must have me mixed up with you. I'm a radio amateur. You
are a bystander.

Nope. I've been IN RADIO longer than you have, done more in radio
and electronics than you have. I'm a PROFESSIONAL.

Then you are simply in the wrong newsgroup. This one has to do with
amateur radio, Windy. Statistics will even things out in the long run.

Been a professional in radio longer than you have, too. :-)

Now, did you have some comment on morse code test retention and
"how that so terribly affects your ability to perform as an amateur?"

I'm sure that anyone daring to express the thought that the morse test
should be eliminated gives you the terrible shivers as an amateur.

We can't have Kolonel Klunk getting emotionally upset, can we?

Look, Foggy--Any change in amateur regulations or in the licensing of
radio amateurs effects me directly because I am a user of those segments
of the radio spectrum designated for use by radio amateurs. Those
changes would have no impact on someone who is not a licensed
amateur--someone like you.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
(snip)

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age
"everyone's opinion has value" when the
topic is something in which someone has
no background. (snip)


Really? So, if you have no background in senior levels of government or no
background in the issues at hand, you don't offer opinions when the
government decides to makes policy decisions (taxes, immigration, welfare,
social security, foreign affairs, and so on)? I find that highly unlikely,
Dave. Code testing is a government decision/policy. And the right of the
people to have a say in government decisions and policies is not "new age"
thing.


I take it that you believe that your opinions
on child birth would be meaningful or
relevant to a woman who has had several
children and that your views on space flights
would be found useful to NASA engineers.


Nice dodge, Dave. But we're not talking about a woman with several
children or NASA engineers - this is a discussion about government policy.
And, when it come to that (even abortion and NASA financing), I do expect my
views to matter. After all, my tax dollars are paying for it. Code testing
is also a government policy and the radio frequencies involved belong to all
Americans.


I didn't know a "special" knowledge or
background was required. It doesn't take
great knowledge, or an indepth background,
to see that Morse code is a declining skill
throughout the radio world.

Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that
you and Len share a common mistaken view.
Each of you might have a desire to see it as a
truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out.


What mistaken view - that the rest of the radio world must be considered
when discussing code testing? If so, you're the one mistaken here. The FCC
itself has even taken that view in the Report & Order following the last
round of restructuring when they said;

"We are persuaded that because the
amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service, the emphasis on
Morse code proficiency as a licensing
requirement does not comport with
the basis and purpose of the service.
We note, moreover, that the design of
modern communications systems,
including personal communication
services, satellite, fiber optic, and high
definition television systems, are based
on digital communication technologies.
We also note that no communication
system has been designed in many years
that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy
or the ability to receive messages in
Morse code by ear. In contrast,
modern communication systems are
designed to be automated systems.
Given the changes that have occurred in
communications in the last fifty years,
we believe that reducing the emphasis on
telegraphy proficiency as a licensing
requirement will allow the amateur service
to, as it has in the past, attract technically
inclined persons, particularly the youth of
our country, and encourage them to learn
and to prepare themselves in the areas
where the United States needs expertise."

The FCC went on to later say;

"We also note that most amateur radio
operators who choose to provide
emergency communication do so,
according to the amateur radio press,
using voice or digital modes of
communication, in part, because
information can be exchanged much
faster using these other modes of
communication. Further, we note that
in traditional emergency services, such
as police, fire, and rescue, there is no
requirement that emergency service
personnel hold amateur radio licenses
or any other license that requires
telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is
not a significant factor in determining an
individual's ability to provide or be
prepared to provide emergency
communications."

Note the references throughout to other radio services and to other,
non-Amateur, radio technologies. If we're going to remain a valuable radio
service, worthy of the massive frequencies we hold and unlike personal radio
services (CB), then our ability to fit with and contribute to those outside
Amateur Radio must be a factor in this discussion.


Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt
his lack of a license, or comments (condescending,
outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you
that much if those comments agreed more with
your own views.

Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where
I've supported the posts of Bruce?


I also haven't noticed an ongoing effort to criticize and ridicule Bruce's
posts as you've done with Len's.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Philosophically you are right Dwight.
However, Len has a long history of
diatribes and disjointed rambles that
do not hang together. He is simply
trying to agitate. I've kill filed his
various aliases because of it. (snip)


I can think of several others here who could easily fit into that
description, Dee. Len is indeed confrontational, but I've noticed the
biggest complainers seem to be those who disagree more with his opinions
then his demeaner - these same people seem to object far less when someone
with a similar demeanor posts opinions similar to their own.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/